June 2025

Construction, Costs, Ethics, Indemnity, Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: $4.176M Contractual Fee Award To General Contractor And Against Owner Affirmed On Appeal, But Expert Witness Costs Award To General Contractor Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Construction, Cases: Costs, Cases: Ethics, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Section 1717

Case Explores Fee Clause Interpretation, An Award Of Fees To An Unlicensed Associate Supervised By A California Attorney, And An Award Of Expert Witness Costs Which Were Not Pled Or Proven As Damages.                The Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. v. 250 Fourth Development LP, Case No. A169470 (1st Dist., Div. 5 June 13, 2025) (unpublished) is […]

Deadlines, Family Law: Ex-Wife’s Challenge To $193,000 In Attorney’s Fees Under Family Code Section 271 Or Contractual Marital Stipulation Fee Clause Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Family Law

Although Notice Of Motion For Appellate Fees Was Untimely, Record Showed That The Lower Court Granted An Extension Request To Ex-Husband As Moving Party.                In Marriage of Richards, Case Nos. G062449 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 13, 2025) (unpublished), ex-wife appealed a Family Code section 271 sanctions and contractual marital stipulation fee

Sanctions, SLAPP: Plaintiff Losing A SLAPP Motion On A Cross-Complaint Was Properly Not Granted 128.7 Sanctions For A Mistaken Payment Statement

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: SLAPP

Cross-Complainants Did Fess Up To The Problem, With The Lack Of A Reporter’s Transcript Of The Sanctions Hearing Further Showing No Abuse Of Discretion In The Denial Of The Sanctions Request.                Although we take the cases as we find them for posting purposes, the next one was a dispute over an apparent snafu in

Probate, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: Removed Trustee’s Failure To Challenge Fee Entitlement Under Judgment Affirmed In A Prior Appeal Also Disposed Of Same Challenge In A Second Appeal

Cases: Probate, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

However, The Lower Court Did Reduce The Fee Request Because of Unusually Redacted Time Entries.                The Fifth District, in Trunick v. Calloway, Case No. F086766 (5th Dist. June 11, 2025) (unpublished), affirmed an award of attorney’s fees to a beneficiary who was instrumental in removing co-trustees in a probate dispute.  In earlier proceedings, the

Prevailing Party: In Contractual Fees Case, Attorneys’ Fees Request Of $253,440 Properly Denied To Plaintiff Winning A $256,851 Verdict

Cases: Prevailing Party

No Prevailing Party Discretionary Determination Affirmed On Appeal, With Concurring Justice Also Observing That The Lack Of A Reporter’s Transcript Of The Fee Hearing Was Fatal.                In Deep Green Nation Collision, Inc. v. Park, Case No. B339499 (2d Dist., Div. 5 June 9, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff won a jury verdict of $256,851 on breach

Sanctions: Sanctions Orders Against Probate Sibling’s Former Attorney Relating To Change Of Venue Motion Both Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Sanctions

128.5 Sanctions Motion Did Not Comply With Procedural Prerequisites, While Her Status As Former Counsel Did Not Give Proper Opportunity To Contest The Fees Awarded Under CCP § 396b.                In Estate of Miller, Case No. G064476 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 6, 2025) (unpublished), the underlying matter involved a dispute between two siblings over

Family Law: $50,000 § 271 Sanctions Order Against Wife And Denial Of Her § 271 Sanctions Request Against Husband Both Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Family Law

Section 271 Sanctions Order Against Her Not Tethered To Expenses, And Her Denied Sanctions Request Was Properly Raised Through A Responsive Declaration To A Different Motion Not Seeking Sanctions.                In Marriage of Kapila and Deshmukh, Case No. A170589 (1st Dist., Div. 5 June 3, 2025) (unpublished), wife was hit with a $50,000 sanctions award

Homeowner Associations, Prevailing Party: Where Homeowners Prevailed On Two Claims And HOA Prevailed On A Declaratory Relief Claim, Results Were Mixed ….

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

The Result Was That HOA Was Not Entitled To Prevailing Party Attorney’s Fees.                “Prevailing party” determinations, frequently, depend on whether a trial judge believes a litigant truly met its litigation objectives.  Generally, if a result is a “mixed” good/bad result, the litigant does not obtain attorney’s fees under a fee-shifting statute.  That conclusion resonated

Scroll to Top